[RFC] Repository layout change -- status update

[Jan Rekorajski]

On Tue, 15 May 2007, Aredridel wrote:

> 
> > have 'packages/%{name}' containt (a) the spec file, (b) a 'files' subdir, that 
> > contains the traditional 'SOURCES' content and (c) any other files containing 
> > metadata. Off the top of my head -- the 'tag->revision' file we've discussed 
> > wrt to svn migration. And in the future -- any other metadata that might 
> > prove usefull (with the ability to just add a file with some interesting info 
> > regarding a package, the possibilities are quite big; sooner or later 
> > someone's bound to use it for builder/ftp/bugzilla/somethingelse 
> > integration).
> >   
> This or flat makes the most sense to me.
> 
> If we're reorganizing on this scale, though, any reason not to move to
> SVN in the process?

Yes, SVN sucks a lot more than CVS.
Where CVS only lacks 'mv' command, SVN is broken by design wrt tags and
branches.
Let's leave that issue for later and do one thing at a time.

Janek
-- 
Jan Rekorajski            |  ALL SUSPECTS ARE GUILTY. PERIOD!
baggins<at>mimuw.edu.pl   |  OTHERWISE THEY WOULDN'T BE SUSPECTS, WOULD THEY?
BOFH, MANIAC              |                   -- TROOPS by Kevin Rubio